[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: The Drive to 1.5

From: Lieven Govaerts <svnlgo_at_mobsol.be>
Date: 2007-07-14 10:30:06 CEST

Mark Phippard wrote:
> Finally, I am not proposing any kind of high ceremony process or
> document here. Just a place where people can record things that
> either they want to get done themselves or maybe no needs to be done
> before we can release. This issue with the fsfs transaction names is
> a good a recent example.

+1 on your proposal. I personally favor using the issue tracker as TODO
list, it's already there and it allows us to assign issues and set

There's one thing I want to add: we also have another source of TODO
items and that's the list of XFail-ing tests in the test suite. Not only
do they indicate certain issues or missing features, the fact that
someone took the time to write those tests shows a genuine interest in
getting the issue fixed or the feature implemented.

We typically use our test suite to test for regressions, we write tests
while developing a feature and commit them both at the same time. Some
people already started writing acceptance tests, which I'd like to see
happen more often. What's the difference between an acceptance and a
regression test? Simple: you write an acceptance test upfront before
implementing the feature or fix. It indicates how you want svn to behave
with the new feature in place.
The big advantages of having Xfail-ing acceptance tests are:
- we can add a list of acceptance tests in our TODO list for each
feature, which we consider as the minimum set of functionality required
for release. This way we always know exactly what needs to be done.
- Having them allows more people to work on a feature, as the expected
behavior is clearly defined
- Once they're written and the feature is implemented, they
automatically act as regression tests.

The one big disadvantage is that it's very difficult to get all the
details of the tests exactly right upfront. While I think that's a
problem in itself, adding a comment that a test is indicative should be
sufficient to remove this disadvantage.

I want to propose - as a best practice, not as a strict project
requirement - that we add tests or placeholders for those features or
issues we want to get fixed in 1.5 and include a reference to those
tests in the issue description. I know we already have them for the
'--depth' feature, it'd good to know which of them Karl considers as
mandatory for 1.5 release.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jul 14 10:25:49 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.